The Learner > Learning and teaching
Teaching patterns
A useful starting point for understanding what teachers do is to ask them about their own conceptions of learning, and how it is best supported. In one such conversation, Marton, Dall’Alba and Kun (1996) report that differences in ambition do not vary greatly between China and the West. However, what may be different are the routes chosen for achieving such ambitions.
This raises the question of what such differences of “process” reflect. Do they reflect deeply-rooted difference in social and cultural practices more generally? Or do they reflect constraints of a more ecological kind: constraints that arise from the material and social design of schooling. Teasing these alternatives apart is surely going to be difficult (Givven, Jacobs, Hiebert, Jacobs, Hollingsworth and Gallimore, 2005).
Here we first consider some basic differences in that ecology, before moving towards sketching some of the differences in instructional strategy and practice that have been observed in cross-cultural comparisons.
As Lapointe et al (1992) document, compared to most Western systems, the Chinese school year is longer and the Chinese school day is longer. Moreover, outside of school, children report spending much more time on homework. Related to this, it is relevant to note that parents make more investment in supporting their children engagement with school (Cai et al, 2004). This remains true for Chinese families settled in Europe. Francis and Archer (2005) report that the success of Chinese children in the UK school system is linked to the importance placed upon educational values by their parents. All of this must be relevant to understanding the effort that the Chinese learner is observed to exercise.
An ecological factor more directly relevant to the teacher’s experience of teaching is the size of a typical Chinese class: it is much larger than those in Western educational systems. Jin and Cortazzi (1998) note that this is often observed but rarely made the subject of research. They identified 707 articles on educational practice in China, only one of which concerned class size. It is apparently not seen as a profound constraint by practitioners themselves. However, when viewed from within another educational system, the possibility of constraint is quite apparent. For instance, it will be difficult to organise classes into small groups in such a context: supervision becomes hard and the re-arrangements of furniture difficult to manage.
While large classes may seem daunting from the Western perspective, Chinese teachers are struck by other contrasts between the two systems. In particular, they are puzzled by how the typical UK primary level teacher can manage lessons in so many different subject areas. Their own system respects the specialist knowledge of individual teachers and only requires that they teach to this. Similarly, although the average class size may be around 50, the teacher-pupil ratio is closer to a generous 25:1. This reflects that fact that teachers conduct fewer lessons. According to Jin and Cortazzi (1998), they do not see the point of small classes when the real challenge is to get the teaching of the material right. And getting it right is not so much about the intimacy of teacher-pupil interaction. To this end, it is common for teachers to work together with their peers in order to discuss and prepare their lessons.
It is clear that these structural features could sustain a variety of significant differences between Chinese and Western educational practice. For example the collaborative preparation of teaching might mean an enriched degree of shared knowledge regarding the way in which curriculum material is being delivered in school. It might also serve as a productive way for teachers to advance and sharpen their individual practice. On the other hand, the early concentration of specialist subject teaching may make it difficult to present topics in a cross-disciplinary manner.
Apart from class size, another feature of Chinese teaching that is commonly noticed from the West is a dependence on core text books. Ma, Zhao and Tuo (2004) have observed maths lessons in urban and rural China and noted a high dependence on these books. Around one third of time is spent on the class doing exercises from them. However, even this aspect of teaching has to be seen systemically: seen within the larger ecological context in which it is set. Photocopying and printing remain expensive in China. It follows that the range of local and improvised paper-based materials is going to be limited. It is therefore not surprising that, in a large class, there is shared attention to a common text.
How those classes are organised into unfolding 40-minute exchanges has been studied most closely in relation to mathematics teaching (this may reflect the special curiosity in the West about the particular success of Chinese pupils in this domain). Stigler and Hiebert (1999) found that Chinese teachers spend much more time on each single topic, compared to comparable lessons in the USA. Wang and Murphy (2004) conclude from their observations of maths classrooms that teachers make a much greater investment in creating coherence across topics. This may reflect their more diligent preparation, or it may reflect the payoff of a slower pace at which topics are preferred to be addressed.
Yet, an example of this sort reminds us of how little we understand of the relation between the different discourse strategies of classrooms and the fostering of knowledge for learners. At first sight, increased topic coherence seems a quality to be admired. On the other hand, as Wang and Murphy point out, it may be achieved at the expense of creating a useful atmosphere of ambiguity. When exposition leaves no uncertainty and no puzzlement then perhaps the conditions for pupil inquiry and creativity have been lost.
More detailed investigation of teacher-class talk would be welcome. However, the research literature furnishes some observations of this discourse that provide a useful basis for framing typical practice. Observers such as Jin and Cortazzi have documented the formal script that lessons tend to follow. Language seems deployed in ways that stress the interdependent nature of the gathering. Thus it is common to open a lesson with “class begins”. Perhaps the contrast with “let’s begin class” suggests a more abstract and less interpersonal device for framing what is happening. Similarly, personal names are used infrequently, while choral responses are common. There is also a typically public correction of mistakes. This, apparently, is not a source of embarrassment or stress. It appears understood by pupils that failure is something to be learned from. Praise is used sparingly and if the teacher does not reply to a pupil response, this usually is assumed to mean answers were correct.
While the social dimension of teaching is not intimate in the sense of one-to-one teacher-pupil exchanges, teaching does remain strongly participative. Sometimes this will be constructed around the activity of pairs of pupils or small groups. These children will stand (perhaps in different parts of the classroom) and ask each other questions. Typically, the dialogue will be anticipated and prepared in advance. There is a sense of a “double act”: tell-elaborate-tell-elaborate. A similar formal discourse is built around the teachers’ recurrent posing of questions to the class. Analyses of Western classroom talk stress the IRF sequence: (teacher) Initiation – (student) Response – (teacher) Feedback. In Chinese classrooms, these can take the form of extended IRFRFRFRF exchanges, in which the response to an initial question is gradually modified and extended.
All of this reinforces the strong sense of a group “performance” and the model of the Chinese teacher as a “virtuoso” (Paine, 1990). Jin and Cortazzi (1998) gathered photo diaries of classrooms in which these patterns of exchange could be observed. Their data suggest that the format described is highly engaging for most pupils and they observed “avid listening” to the typical exchanges orchestrated by teachers.
Cortazzi and Jin (1996) complement their observations of classrooms with reactions from Chinese undergraduates concerning what, on reflection, they considered made for a good school teacher and a good student. These judgements were compared with those made by Western students. For the Chinese respondents, good teachers were warm and friendly individuals that deserved respect from pupils. For the Chinese, good students ask and answer questions (although they are more likely to do so out of class) and they were more likely to study independently. For the British respondents, discipline was more of an important issue and the asking of questions was impeded by feelings of being shy or fear of mockery.
It is clear from these reviews of what is done by learners and teachers that evidence exists for a distinctive profile of educational practice. It is fair to conclude that the form this profile takes for the learner is not – in terms of Western theories of learning – an ideal one in the eyes of modern teachers from the West. This has suggested to some commentators a paradox. In the next section this paradox will be identified and, from it, we derive the chance to revisit some of these claims here about learning in a more critical spirit.
References
Cai, J., Lin, F., & Pan, L. (2004) How do Chinese Learn Mathematics? Some Evidence-Based Insights and Needed Directions. In Fan, L. (Ed.), How do Chinese Learn Mathematics? Some perspectives from insiders . Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company, Incorporated.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. X. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169-206). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Francis, B., & Archer, L. (2005). British-Chinese pupils' and parents' constructions of the value of education. British Educational Research Journal, 31, 89-108.
Givvin, K. B., Hiebert, J., Jacobs, J. K., Hollingsworth, H., & Gallimore, R. (2005). Are there national patterns of teaching? Evidence from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Comparative Education Review, 49, 311-343.
Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 739-761.
Lapointe, A.E., Mead, N.A. and Askew, J.W. (Eds) (1992). The International Assessment of Educational Progress Report No. 22-CAEP-01: Learning Mathematics. New Jersey: The Centre for the Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service.
Ma, Y., Zhao, D., & Tuo, Z. (2004). Differences within Communalities: How is Mathematics Taught in Rural and Urban Regions in Mainland China?. In Fan, L. (Ed.), How do Chinese Learn Mathematics? Some perspectives from insiders Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company, Incorporated.
Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Kun, T. L. (1996). Memorizing and Understanding: The Keys to the Paradox? In Watkins D. A., Biggs J.(Eds.), The Chinese Learner. Hong Kong and Melbourne: CERC and ACER.
Paine, L. W. (1990). The teacher as virtuoso: A Chinese model for teaching. Teachers College Record, 92 (1), 49-82.
Stigler, J.W. and Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas From the World's Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Free Press.
Wang, T., & Murphy, J. (2004). An Examination of Coherence in a Chinese Mathematics Classroom. In Fan, L. (Ed.), How do Chinese Learn Mathematics? Some perspectives from insiders Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company, Incorporated.